Sunday, December 02, 2012

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

#4613 and #4621 are perfect examples of why it's a fool's errand to debate gun rights with liberals.

Yes, indeed. The parts where they keep pestering you for "definitions" and look for "specificity" and even bring up "facts" must be thoroughly maddening.

Gregory whiffed on a few fat ones. He kept pressing the point that if ammunition clips were regulated, isn't it possible that Lanza would have killed fewer people? Wayne kept bringing up Columbine, that it happened during the assault weapons ban as proof that weapons bans don't work. The obvious follow up is "if the perpetrators of Columbine had semi automatic weapons with 31 round clips, isn't it possible they would have killed a lot more?"

Gregory's job is to whiff on a few fat ones. Like his predecessor, Tim Russert, his job is to give exposure while not really disturbing the status quo. If he did, his "get" bookings would decrease and, with that, ratings. Not going to happen. The form of Meet The Press is to appear tough, without actually being tough enough to truly embarrass its guests. I noticed that one way it does that is to fail badly on the followups that would really pin down an interviewee. Ask the first question that everyone wants asked, then drift off afterwards.

Many of us here will probably find Pinker's conclusions unsatisfying, since he advises we don't obsess about things like Newtown and don't get carried away by trying to enact extreme and bizarre solutions.

Given that no one here is looking 'to enact extreme and bizarre solutions' I have no idea why you'd think 'many of us here will probably find Pinker's conclusions unsatisfying'.

as i learn more of how last week went down i think the president is being too much the tough guy

This might be true, but I also think of it in terms of Obama knowing he'll be sitting at the same poker table with these guys for four more years. In these situations it's ALWAYS better to be perceived as a grudging hard ass. He also caved, to my chagrin, on Susan Rice, and he's handling his cabinet appointments all wrong. Floating Chuck Hagel and giving the GOP time to take its shots before Hagel can reply seems very, very ill-advised to me.

If he appears particularly concilliatory here he's letting himself in for a very long four years.

There were, of course, no suits against the states for violating the Bill of Rights until after the Civil War, because under Barron v. Baltimore the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. In fact, no state laws were struck down under the Bill of Rights until 1932.

Yes, but this is a terrible thing in itself, and an even worse thing for a liberal to state approvingly. Shame on you, too, Mark.

I don't really disagree with the liberal take on how Obama should handle fiscal cliff negotiations that was expressed in response to HW. There's no reason to make concessions to someone who may not even be able to deliver the votes, and my utopian ass would rather Obama try and convince Boehner to ditch the mouthbreathers and form a king-making conservative centrist party. But the "you get nothing, I get that for free" quote just struck me as unnecessarily harsh, at odds with the narrative of Obama moving THIS much and the Republicans not at all, and with the potential to reinforce ideas like HW expressed on the right. Why not "That gets you a seat at the table." But of course it's a single quote, out of context, from a private discussion, and anyways I'm a terrible negotiator.

EDIT: and if I told you why, this post would have to get deleted, too.

I am fascinated by conservatives, they are generally very bizarrely illogical outside of certain narrow fields. When talking about the US, it is always in danger of complete collapse and/or turning into an authoritarian tyranny (liberal hellhole). But when talk of the world comes around the US is great, wonderful and exceptional to the point that no other nation compares.

I don't think there's any reasonable argument against the idea that the US is fundamentally different from every other nation in the world. It's not that nothing anyone else does matters or provides any guidance as to our own best policies, but that everything from our culture's emphasis on the individual, our diversity in matters of race, religion, and politics, our size, our system of government, and even our isolation from the rest of the world make it difficult (not impossible, but different) to compare policy.

--We don't emphasize individuality, except in one very narrow area. It's our collective national fantasy, but it's not true.
--Other countries are more diverse. We're predominantly a white, Christian nation.
--Our politics are enslaved by a two party system. We have very, very little political diversity compared to many other countries.
--As for size, that's trivial. It's like arguing it's difficult to compare men who are slightly taller.
--Our isolation is also a minor point. Australia is as isolated, and it's routinely brought up as a close comparison in the gun control debate. It also couldn't really be more perfect, geographically, wrt comparisons generally.

In any case, the argument that America is unique was only put forward upthread in order for a few on the extreme right to avoid having to deal with apt comparisons, and to acknowledge that gun control is effective. No one has said 'there's no difference! What works there is guaranteed to work here!'

The differences are far from impossible to account for for the purposes of many comparisons, while the similarities are extremely useful.

But the "you get nothing, I get that for free" quote just struck me as unnecessarily harsh, at odds with the narrative of Obama moving THIS much and the Republicans not at all, and with the potential to reinforce ideas like HW expressed on the right. Why not "That gets you a seat at the table."

Sometimes it's good to tell the other party what's what, in order to stop the caviling on points you know are settled. I can easily see Obama shutting down Boehner's intransigence on some points by saying, \"#### you. That's done. That's not negotiable, it's already decided. Next point."

Really, its brand confusion. There should be no reason for Tea Party and Republican Party to be interchangeable like it is, but it happened and now they have to deal with it. You certainly don't see this on the left like with the Democratic Party and the Green Party.

They had too much in common not to try, though. The GOP saw an angry vote producing vehicle they thought they could harness. I don't see the GOP giving up the tea party. Without it they become a minority party pretty much forever. OTOH, I can see the tea party deciding to punt the national level (or reserving the right to endorse the right GOP candidate) and focusing on states and regions where they'll be the dominant political force.

Isn't the GOP banner already only a flag of convenience for many teaper pols? In short, I can see the tea party splitting from the GOP, but not the reverse.

That's very, very true, with one useful exception. Obama was perceived, even among independents leaning Romney, as a likable guy, as more likely than the other side to negotiate and compromise (not nearly as valuable a political trait as we're led to believe), and that helped him win the election.

It looks like he had enough of a cushion on the electoral map that he could have been perceived as more partisan than he was and still won, but it certainly didn't hurt, may have given him a big enough win to push through a more favorable negotiation wrt the debt ceiling, does help make the case in a deeply divided country that the current debt ceiling impasse is a GOP creation, and will otherwise probably serve him in good stead over the next four years.

That likability also helped immunize Obama against certain attacks from the far right; something against which the Clintons were more vulnerable during Clinton's second term (though I may be on thinner ice with this claim).

So, I do think there was and is some political capital in his approach, even though we'd probably agree he took it much too far.

NOTE: As an aside I love how the fact that Joe thinks the US is ~15 times larger than Australia means nothing from Australia's history can be used to guide the US. Because every proof of concept, every statistical study has to be much larger than ... oh wait of course it doesn't.

OK, your objection to my population-size objection is noted. Now what about the rest of my comment, especially the last two sentences:

The U.S. has over 15 times more people than Australia, the U.S. is far more diverse than Australia, the U.S. has substantially greater problems with gangs and drugs, the U.S.'s illegitimacy rate is almost double Australia's, the two countries' cultures are different, the geography is different, the weather is different, the population densities are different, etc., etc.

All of that aside, what was the baseline? Was Australia having 20 mass shootings per year which dropped to zero after it passed some new gun laws, or did the country move to reduce guns after a one-off incident that was statistically unlikely in the first place?

But the "you get nothing, I get that for free" quote just struck me as unnecessarily harsh, at odds with the narrative of Obama moving THIS much and the Republicans not at all, and with the potential to reinforce ideas like HW expressed on the right. Why not "That gets you a seat at the table."

The reason Obama gets the revenue for free is that the tax cuts expire on their own on Dec. 31. There's no reason for him to give up anything in return for that, particularly since Boehner isn't giving him anything in return.

Indonesia, Singapore, India to name a couple. If we're going by language, its probably Indonesia. This list has them second in spoken most languages behind Papa New Guinea, but Indonesia is a much larger nation.

(CNN) – Republican lawmakers said Sunday they believe President Barack Obama wants the country to fall off the fiscal cliff for political purposes.

“I think he sees a political victory at the bottom of the cliff. He gets all this additional tax revenue for new programs. He gets to cut the military, which Democrats have been calling for for years and he gets to blame Republicans for it,” Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming said on “Fox News Sunday.”

His sentiment was shared by Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina.

“I believed from the very beginning and continue to believe that the president has no interest at all in not going over the cliff,” Mulvaney told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.” “He wants to go over the cliff. Everything I've looked at and seen out of the White House.”

@4708 - I doubt the personal popularity is going to fall that much at this point. The nation has had four years to go angry-girlfriend on Obama and they just still like the guy. And if the GOP/Teapers want to lock down on the "crazy ex that everyone is sort of terrified of and wish would just get arrested and disappear" title, let them try to gin up some impeachment bullshit about Obama.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but let's say there is no last minuted deal and the so-called cliff comes to pass. Now it's January 4 and legislation is introduced to restore the Bush tax cuts for all but the top bracket. How many Congressional Republicans are going to oppose that, and how are they going to explain that vote to their constituents?

Indonesia, Singapore, India to name a couple. If we're going by language, its probably Indonesia. This list has them second in spoken most languages behind Papa New Guinea, but Indonesia is a much larger nation.

The U.S. has nine or 10 metro areas larger than Singapore, so that one isn't very helpful. The other two are huge countries, but comparing the U.S. to two Third World countries seems problematic for all sorts of reasons. (And are India and Indonesia diverse in the same way the term is used in the U.S., i.e., as "melting pots," or are they diverse regionally and/or ancestrally?)

There should be no reason for Tea Party and Republican Party to be interchangeable like it is, but it happened and now they have to deal with it.

Quoting Wikipedia, for the sake of convenience:

In advance of a new edition of their book American Grace, political scientists David E. Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert D. Putnam of Harvard published in a The New York Times opinion the results of their research into the political attitudes and background of Tea Party supporters. Using a pre-Tea Party poll in 2006 and going back to the same respondents in 2011, they found the supporters to be not "nonpartisan political neophytes" as often described, but largely "overwhelmingly partisan Republicans" who were politically active prior to the Tea Party...

Polls found that... roughly 77% of supporters had voted for Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain in 2008.

A good chunk of them are true small-government types, and a good chunk of them are put-God-back-into-the-government types, the two philosophies which basically define the modern GOP. They're Republicans who desperately want to look in the mirror and see themselves as Outsiders, but they're still Republicans.

They're Republicans who desperately want to look in the mirror and see themselves as Outsiders, but they're still Republicans.

I was at a dinner yesterday with a bunch of righties from all over the country that in the 90's and such would call themselves Republicans. Almost all of them said they were either independent now or were going to consider themselves independent in the future. The problem with that view is that they are all still going to vote republican come hell or high water. It's a meaningless distinction.

A good chunk of them are true small-government types, and a good chunk of them are put-God-back-into-the-government types, the two philosophies which basically define the modern GOP. They're Republicans who desperately want to look in the mirror and see themselves as Outsiders, but they're still Republicans.

I was at a dinner yesterday with a bunch of righties from all over the country that in the 90's and such would call themselves Republicans. Almost all of them said they were either independent now or were going to consider themselves independent in the future. The problem with that view is that they are all still going to vote republican come hell or high water. It's a meaningless distinction.

All the more reason the Republican party didn't need to adopt the Tea Party identification, or allow it to be done. There was little upside to it for Republicans.

Edit: They gained very little marketshare from the move, and potentially gave up much more in the future.

But it's a fact anyone decent should wish didn't exist; it certainly shouldn't be used by anyone decent as ammo against anyone who, for whatever reason, uses the language of the Bill of Rights to defend or sustain any freedom, even the type of freedom liberals don't like. Just because liberals hate the second amendment doesn't mean they should channel the spirit of Bill "Achtung!" Rehnquist

He tried conciliatory four years ago. It got him less than nowhere. To expect that he failed to learn the first thing from that experience is to, well, whiff on a fat one.

You've got to be shitting me. He's a serial and congenital conciliator. To pardon the indulgences of Wall Street and the Bush Administration he nailed 95 feces to the door of his own constituency and said Ich kann nicht anders. No matter his capital or mandate he's got as much of a bipartisan fetish as Joe Lieberman, he just sells it better because he doesn't have Holy Joe's dolorous, self-righteous, and nakedly tribalist personality. If he had half the partisanship and a tenth of the decency of LBJ or FDR at least several hundred financial and war criminals would be in jail right now and we'd have universal health care.

All the more reason the Republican party didn't need to adopt the Tea Party identification, or allow it to be done. There was little upside to it for Republicans.

There might have been little upside for the GOP establishment, but the Tea Party has yielded big gains for grassroots conservatives. Among others, the GOP establishment wanted the odious Charlie Crist instead of Marco Rubio, and David Dewhurst instead of Ted Cruz. There have been some whiffs as well, but the Tea Party has been a net positive, without question.

Tea party candidates have largely displaced GOP candidates in red states and have largely done nothing for the GOP in blue states/districts.

As the demographics swings more and more solid red states are becoming swing states and some of the swing states are becoming blue states. Tea Party stupidity isn't helping the GOP with this trend at all.

But it's a fact anyone decent should wish didn't exist; it certainly shouldn't be used by anyone decent as ammo against anyone who, for whatever reason, uses the language of the Bill of Rights to defend or sustain any freedom, even the type of freedom liberals don't like.

Well, my basic view of life is that we should start with facts, even if they're unpleasant.

JMHO, but I don't see the 2A as protecting an individual right in any case. I think it refers to a collective right. But regardless, it remains true that any originalist argument for the 2A has to account for the fact that states could and did regulate guns. Just as any argument for freedom of religion has to account for the fact that MA and CT could and did have established churches for 30-40 years after the adoption of the BoR.

Ted Cruz won a Republican seat in a Republican state by 16%. Marco Rubio's Democratic opponent scooped up a hefty 20% of the vote in a three-way race. So you can chalk up two more hand-wrapped gifts to the GOP, courtesy of the Tea Party.

As for control of the Senate, hey, it's not the Tea Party's fault that the voters are prejudiced against non-witches.

Ted Cruz won a Republican seat in a Republican state by 16%. Marco Rubio's Democratic opponent scooped up a hefty 20% of the vote in a three-way race. So you can chalk up two more hand-wrapped gifts to the GOP, courtesy of the Tea Party.

What's the above supposed to prove? Are you claiming the GOP would have been better off with Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst?

That they voted for tax cuts and this was the best deal they could get from the White House who are playing partisan politics.

You misread my post. I asked how many would vote against a bill that restores the Bush tax rates for all but the top bracket, and how they would explain to their constituents that they voted against cutting their taxes.

What's the above supposed to prove? Are you claiming the GOP would have been better off with Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst?

Hmm, gee, tough one. Are you claiming the GOP would be worse off with Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst, and Dick Lugar, and John Brunner, and Sue Lowden, and Jane Norton, and Mike Castle? I'll bet a lot of lefties fully endorse your "clogging up the basepaths" philosophy for political victory, though.

But anyway, #4730 didn't really refute anything I said. The biggest chunk of Canada's diversity comes from splitting white Canadians from white French-Canadians, the latter of whom are mostly in one place (Quebec).

Hmm, gee, tough one. Are you claiming the GOP would be worse off with Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst, and Dick Lugar, and John Brunner, and Sue Lowden, and Jane Norton, and Mike Castle? I'll bet a lot of lefties fully endorse your "clogging up the basepaths" philosophy for political victory, though.

Yeah, just what the GOP needs: More RINOs.

Having a non-filibuster-proof majority of the Senate while a Dem is in the White House would mean little beyond bragging rights for the GOP. The GOP is far better off with a 45-member Senate caucus that includes people like Rubio, Cruz, and Flake than it is having 51 members that include Crist and other useless RINOs.

But anyway, #4730 didn't really refute anything I said. The biggest chunk of Canada's diversity comes from splitting white Canadians from white French-Canadians, the latter of whom are mostly in one place (Quebec).

Not to the same degree, but the Hispanic population of America is fairly regional isn't it?

In broad strokes I'd say the diversity is roughly comparable. I'm not exactly sure how to measure it, but I'd put the "diversity" of Toronto or Montreal against any American city...and then less diverse in rural areas.

No two countries are exactly the same obviously, but in terms of what we're talking about (or at least what I thought we were talking about) is there a significant difference diversity-wise between the experience of living in say, Chicago and living in Toronto?

I like to draw distinctions between Canadian and American culture (as any good Canadian with a healthy national inferiority complex should), but in all seriousness I imagine I could be plopped down in many places in either country and spend a not insignificant amount of time trying to determine which country I'm in.

I wonder what John Boehner thinks about having a Democratic Senate, and if it means nothing to him but bragging rights.

But what the heck. It'll only take 6 years to try to climb back up to where you were. Sure, five of those uninspiringly amarinth red Senate seats are now sky blue... but aren't the two that turned burgundy red just gorgeous?

Not to the same degree, but the Hispanic population of America is fairly regional isn't it?

Not really. This might have been true 20 years ago, but Latinos are just about everywhere now, even in a lot of the smallest towns in cold-weather areas.

In broad strokes I'd say the diversity is roughly comparable. I'm not exactly sure how to measure it, but I'd put the "diversity" of Toronto or Montreal against any American city...and then less diverse in rural areas.

Perhaps, but the numbers are still the numbers. Canada is ~80 percent non-Hispanic white, while the U.S. is ~66 percent non-Hispanic white and dropping. That's a fairly big difference, before even getting to the issue of scale (i.e., the U.S. has roughly 9 times more people than Canada).

In terms of blacks and Latinos, the numbers are 13 and 16 percent in the U.S. vs. just 3 percent and 1 percent in Canada [2012 U.S. Census vs. 2006 Canada Census]. When talking about guns, these numbers are a huge and vital difference.

Hmm, gee, tough one. Are you claiming the GOP would be worse off with Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst, and Dick Lugar, and John Brunner, and Sue Lowden, and Jane Norton, and Mike Castle? I'll bet a lot of lefties fully endorse your "clogging up the basepaths" philosophy for political victory, though.

Yeah, just what the GOP needs: More RINOs.

See, this is why I'm not a Republican anymore. If there is no room in the party for Dick Lugar, there is certainly no room for me.

I wonder what John Boehner thinks about having a Democratic Senate, and if it means nothing to him but bragging rights.

But what the heck. It'll only take 6 years to try to climb back up to where you were.

It's funny how much you're focused on a few Senate losses while disregarding the 2010 GOP takeover of the House. The idea that 2010 would have been as successful, or that the gains made in places like Wisconsin and Michigan (!) vis-a-vis unions, would have happened without the Tea Party movement is fairly laughable.

Sure, five of those uninspiringly amarinth red Senate seats are now sky blue... but aren't the two that turned burgundy red just gorgeous?

Given that those two seats include two of the most likely frontrunners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, I'd say yes, they are.

Perhaps, but the numbers are still the numbers. Canada is ~80 percent non-Hispanic white, while the U.S. is ~66 percent non-Hispanic white and dropping. That's a fairly big difference, before even getting to the issue of scale (i.e., the U.S. has roughly 9 times more people than Canada).

In terms of blacks and Latinos, the numbers are 13 and 16 percent in the U.S. vs. just 3 percent and 1 percent in Canada [2012 U.S. Census vs. 2006 Canada Census].

Yes, as I noted above, they are diverse in different ways...I was just noting that Canada has a comparable degree of "diversity" to America as a response to "I doubt anyone can name three countries that even approach the U.S.'s level of racial and ethnic diversity. Brazil is probably the only other country in the discussion."

French-Canadians represent a different dynamic and raise different issues than Hispanic-Americans. People of asian descent, and aboriginals make up a larger bulk of the visible minorities in Canada, while in America it is African-Americans. But I don't see how Canada doesn't approach America's level of racial and ethnic diversity.

As for the population, I'm not sure how that's relevant to measuring diversity.

The GOP is far better off with a 45-member Senate caucus that includes people like Rubio, Cruz, and Flake than it is having 51 members that include Crist and other useless RINOs.

Dude, you're insane. You have to take guys you think are RINOs on the flank, in order to have numerical superiority. Especially in states like Delaware - someone you feel is a RINO will still vote with the Republicans far more than he or she will with the Democrats. The Democratic party knows this - it'll generally ignore the bleating of the netroot folks and will settle for conservative Democrats in situations where they have little choice.

I'd rather have a pitcher strike out the batter rather than let the ball go into play, but that doesn't mean that I'd rather allow a homer than let the ball go into play.

But anyway, #4730 didn't really refute anything I said. The biggest chunk of Canada's diversity comes from splitting white Canadians from white French-Canadians, the latter of whom are mostly in one place (Quebec).

And as Joe is clearly telling us, there's no diversity but racial diversity. When Joe says the US is distinctly diverse what he means is "ain't nobody else got to deal with them black folk like we do."

And as Joe is clearly telling us, there's no diversity but racial diversity. When Joe says the US is distinctly diverse what he means is "ain't nobody else got to deal with them black folk like we do."

I'm assuming he's just saying that American diversity and Canadian diversity are two different animals which have nothing relevant to say to another.

Because to suggest issues of cultural diversity haven't been a dominant feature of Canadian cultural and political history is pretty ridiculous.

Having a non-filibuster-proof majority of the Senate while a Dem is in the White House would mean little beyond bragging rights for the GOP.

22 minutes later:It's funny how much you're focused on a few Senate losses while disregarding the 2010 GOP takeover of the House.

Yes... "funny."

The idea that 2010 would have been as successful, or that the gains made in places like Wisconsin and Michigan vis-a-vis unions, would have happened without the Tea Party movement is fairly laughable.

Yes... "laughable."

In Michigan, Rick Snyder ran as a moderate, and won election because of Democratic crossover votes. The Tea Party called him "RINO Rick," and preferred Pete Hoekstra. Then again, compared to the purifying triumph of losing five Senate seats, I guess failing to stop Governor Snyder is a very substantial win to the Tea Party.

Greg (U)K — I'll happily concede that Canada has a lot of diversity. I just don't believe Canada is as diverse as the U.S., either statistically or practically, and especially not within the context of a debate about guns (which is where this whole thing started).

The biggest percentage of Canada's diversity comes from separating white Canadians from white French-Canadians, the latter of which are mostly in one place (Quebec). Aside from some language and cultural differences, it appears white Canadians and French-Canadians are otherwise very similar in terms of education, income, crime rate, etc. (Indeed, the crime rate in Quebec appears to be lower than in the rest of Canada.) Meanwhile, in the U.S., the biggest percentages of diversity are with Latinos and blacks, who are substantially dissimilar to whites when it comes to education, income, and crime rate.

Whether it's guns or just about anything else, comparing the U.S. to Canada seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Having a non-filibuster-proof majority of the Senate while a Dem is in the White House would mean little beyond bragging rights for the GOP.

22 minutes later:
It's funny how much you're focused on a few Senate losses while disregarding the 2010 GOP takeover of the House.

Yes... "funny."

The idea that 2010 would have been as successful, or that the gains made in places like Wisconsin and Michigan vis-a-vis unions, would have happened without the Tea Party movement is fairly laughable.

Yes... "laughable."

I don't know why I bother, since your only contribution to this thread is to nip at my heels on a constant basis, but where is the "gotcha" in the above?

In Michigan, Rick Snyder ran as a moderate, and won election because of Democratic crossover votes. The Tea Party called him "RINO Rick," and preferred Pete Hoekstra. Then again, compared to the purifying triumph of losing five Senate seats, I guess failing to stop Governor Snyder is a very substantial win to the Tea Party.

Right, the anti-union gains in Wisconsin and Michigan had nothing to do with conservatives or the Tea Party but, instead, began with "RINOs" and moderate Dems. Give me a break.

Dude, you're insane. You have to take guys you think are RINOs on the flank, in order to have numerical superiority. Especially in states like Delaware - someone you feel is a RINO will still vote with the Republicans far more than he or she will with the Democrats. The Democratic party knows this - it'll generally ignore the bleating of the netroot folks and will settle for conservative Democrats in situations where they have little choice.

I'd rather have a pitcher strike out the batter rather than let the ball go into play, but that doesn't mean that I'd rather allow a homer than let the ball go into play.

This ignores how the Senate works. Thanks to the filibuster, there just isn't that much difference between having 45 seats and having 51 seats. Now, if a Republican was in the White House, it might be a different story, as confirmations would be a bigger issue, but that won't be the case for at least the next four years.

From the standpoint of advancing conservativism, it's absurd to suggest the GOP would be much better off without Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Jeff Flake in the Senate and with Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and three or four other RINO types.

Specifically costing the GOP its ability to take over the Senate is nothing, but the House takeover was everything. You gotcha'd yourself.

Right, the anti-union gains in Wisconsin and Michigan had nothing to do with conservatives or the Tea Party but, instead, began with "RINOs" and moderate Dems. Give me a break.

No break for you. Candidate Snyder refused to sign the Norquist no-tax pledge, endorsed the auto bailout, and ran as a moderate "tough nerd." Democratic votes gave him his margin of victory in an open primary. After being elected, Snyder vetoed a voter ID law, and worked to create insurance exchanges under Obamacare. It was the Tea Party, that powerful engine of Republican victory, that labelled him "RINO Rick." Here's Newsweek on the 2010 Michigan primary result:

The “weak tea” trend continued Tuesday in a series of marquee primary battles stretching from the upper to lower Midwest. In Michigan, moderate Rick Snyder—a former Gateway executive who supports embryonic-stem-cell research and sought to attract Democratic crossover voters with ads featuring Bill Ford—was competing against a flock of more conservative candidates (Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, state Attorney General Mike Cox, and Rep. Pete Hoekstra) for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

Specifically costing the GOP its ability to take over the Senate is nothing, but the House takeover was everything.

I never said it was "nothing." Obviously, candidate selection could have been better in some 2010 and 2012 races. But in the real world, you take the bad with the good, and on the whole, the Tea Party has been good.

Beyond that, the GOP doesn't need the House and Senate to ensure split government. Controlling the House is sufficient.

No break for you. Candidate Snyder refused to sign the Norquist no-tax pledge, endorsed the auto bailout, and ran as a moderate "tough nerd." Democratic votes gave him his margin of victory in an open primary. After being elected, Snyder vetoed a voter ID law, and worked to create insurance exchanges under Obamacare. It was the Tea Party, that powerful engine of Republican victory, that labelled him "RINO Rick." Here's Newsweek on the 2010 Michigan primary result:

Still ignoring Wisconsin, huh? That's OK. We all know what happened there.

Fair enough. I wasn't really following the guns/diversity discussion (and I'm a little fuzzy on the connection there), so I'll allow that I'd be speaking from ignornace to wade into that discussion. I was merely narrowly responding to a very specific claim. I think we're both fairly clear on where the other stands on the topic so I'm happy to leave it at your summation, except to say I don't really see how French Canada being a geographically and culturally cohesive entity makes the nation less diverse. But, as I say, fair enough, in a very narrow sense debating the meaning of national "diversity" isn't particularly useful I guess.

Dude, you're insane. You have to take guys you think are RINOs on the flank, in order to have numerical superiority. Especially in states like Delaware - someone you feel is a RINO will still vote with the Republicans far more than he or she will with the Democrats. The Democratic party knows this - it'll generally ignore the bleating of the netroot folks and will settle for conservative Democrats in situations where they have little choice.

Among the 75,000 things you claim to find laughable is that "anti-union gains in Wisconsin and Michigan had nothing to do with conservatives or the Tea Party but, instead, began with "RINOs" and moderate Dems." But that's exactly what happened. No Snyder, no "anti-union gains in Michigan."

Among the 75,000 things you claim to find laughable is that "anti-union gains in Wisconsin and Michigan had nothing to do with conservatives or the Tea Party but, instead, began with "RINOs" and moderate Dems." But that's exactly what happened. No Snyder, no "anti-union gains in Michigan."

Is Rick Snyder the king of Michigan? Otherwise, why not tell us about the Michigan legislature and Michigan senate?

Fair enough. I wasn't really following the guns/diversity discussion (and I'm a little fuzzy on the connection there), so I'll allow that I'd be speaking from ignornace to wade into that discussion. I was merely narrowly responding to a very specific claim. I think we're both fairly clear on where the other stands on the topic so I'm happy to leave it at your summation, except to say I don't really see how French Canada being a geographically and culturally cohesive entity makes the nation less diverse. But, as I say, fair enough, in a very narrow sense debating the meaning of national "diversity" isn't particularly useful I guess.

The whole discussion began with liberals trying to find countries to which the U.S. could be compared for purposes of measuring the possible impact of gun control laws. As I said above, I'm happy to concede that Canada is a diverse place in the strict sense, but I don't believe it's similarly diverse enough for purposes of comparing it to the U.S. re: guns, crime, etc.

In both the U.S. and Canada, whites make up the biggest group. If we compared U.S. whites and Canadian whites, it would probably be a valid 1:1 comparison.

In the U.S., the second-biggest group is Latinos, while in Canada it's French-Canadians. Those two cohorts are significantly different when it comes to education, income, crime, etc. (From the little I could find, French-Canadians seem to be doing better than the average Canadian in all of those areas, while Latinos are doing worse than the average American in the same categories.)

In the U.S., the third-biggest group is blacks, while in Canada it's Asians. Again, those two cohorts are significantly different, with the Canadian group doing better and the U.S. group doing worse.

The only point I was trying to make, and I thought it was mostly self-evident, is that even though both countries are diverse in the general sense, the samples are too different to render a valid 1:1 comparison.

The current Michigan legislature could not override the veto of a Democratic Governor. But because there is currently no Democratic Governor, that is not a concern for the Michigan legislature. The reason there is currently no Democratic Governor has nothing to do with the Tea Party, and everything to do with an electable conservative who appealed to moderate Dems. You scoffed at this scenario, after it had already happened.

You insist that the GOP is better off with a purified, more Tea Party-like minority in the Senate, but the Senate is accomplishing almost nothing that advances conservative goals. Whereas in Michigan, the Tea Party's wishes were ignored, but because the Tea Party lost and "RINO Rick" won, the unions were ultimately dealt a blow.

You smirked before that I was "still ignoring Wisconsin." I didn't contradict Wisconsin because the Tea Party did support Scott Walker, and played a role in his election. Yes, we do "all know what happened there." Those were the facts -- in Wisconsin. But in Michigan, apparently all of us don't know what happened there, or simply don't want to.

It's not just Canada. Joe believes this to be true for every country in the world, so you can take your academic studies and real-world examples and stuff it.

Show me some countries with anything resembling America's demographics and America's level of gun ownership and I'll be happy to consider it. But saying/claiming, "This worked in Azerbaijan (pop. 8,000,000)" or "This worked in Singapore (pop. 5,000,000)" is unpersuasive.

***

Diversity is only white people and non-white people. Huh.

For a site supposedly populated by "thinking fans," it sure does seem to attract a lot of people who struggle with reading comprehension.

The current Michigan legislature could not override the veto of a Democratic Governor. But because there is currently no Democratic Governor, that is not a concern for the Michigan legislature. The reason there is currently no Democratic Governor has nothing to do with the Tea Party, and everything to do with an electable conservative who appealed to moderate Dems. You scoffed at this scenario, after it had already happened.

I did? I never even mentioned Rick Snyder until you started in with your performance art.

You insist that the GOP is better off with a purified, more Tea Party-like minority in the Senate, but the Senate is accomplishing almost nothing that advances conservative goals. Whereas in Michigan, the Tea Party's wishes were ignored, but because the Tea Party lost and "RINO Rick" won, the unions were ultimately dealt a blow.

In Michigan, there's a GOP governor, the GOP controls the legislature, and the GOP controls the senate. In Washington, D.C., the Dems control the White House, the Dems control the Senate, and the GOP controls the House. Hmm, I wonder why the GOP is having more success in Michigan than in D.C.?

(And the idea that the "Tea Party's wishes were ignored" in Michigan is funny given that the GOP has a stranglehold on Michigan state government at the moment. You talk as if the governor's race was the only election in Michigan in 2010 or 2012.)

You smirked before that I was "still ignoring Wisconsin." I didn't contradict Wisconsin because the Tea Party did support Scott Walker, and played a role in his election. Yes, we do "all know what happened there." Those were the facts -- in Wisconsin. But in Michigan, apparently all of us don't know what happened there, or simply don't want to.

Yes, you mentioned a politician I never mentioned and then proceeded to "correct" me. Well done. Hope there's someone nearby you can high-five.

Huh? You cited "academic studies and real-world examples" in #4769, thus implying that studies of countries (allegedly) similar to the U.S. exist. Assuming you weren't just grandstanding, would you care to list a few of them?

You cited "academic studies and real-world examples" in #4769, thus implying that studies of countries (allegedly) similar to the U.S. exist. Assuming you weren't just grandstanding, would you care to list a few of them?

Why should I bother? You've summarily dismissed every single example given on the thread, from Australia, from Canada, from the UK and Ireland.... You've made it clear that you're unwilling to accept anything from any of these real-world examples that might apply to the United States. Since you nitpik any difference from any study and use that as a reason for dismissing that study — that's kind of your M.O., grand dismissals — there's no reason to discuss them with you. You're closed to the arguments.

There is a tremendous difference between white Christians in this country. Evangelical Christians, WASPs, and blue-collar Catholics are pretty much nothing alike culturally. "White" is much too big a bucket as well; there is remarkable cultural diversity within races.

Not to mention that over a quarter of the country isn't Christian, and over a third of the country is something other than a non-white Hispanic.

--Our politics are enslaved by a two party system. We have very, very little political diversity compared to many other countries.

There's much more to politics than the two-party system. The laws in each state are distinct, and there is a complicated relationship between federal, state, and even local law. You can see dramatically different laws when you simply cross a state border.

--As for size, that's trivial. It's like arguing it's difficult to compare men who are slightly taller.

No, it's like suggesting that Shaquille O'Neal can't wear this shirt that perfectly fits Mary Lou Retton. Sure, both of them can wear shirts, but they can't wear the same type of shirt.

--Our isolation is also a minor point. Australia is as isolated, and it's routinely brought up as a close comparison in the gun control debate. It also couldn't really be more perfect, geographically, wrt comparisons generally.

Australia is more isolated, but I wouldn't call it a particularly good geographic comparison, and it is an exceptionally poor demographic comparison. You can point to individual countries and say that they are similar to the US in this way or that way, but in combination, there are always tremendous geographic, demographic, and most importantly, cultural differences.

It would be a remarkable change in our trust of and deference to authority to significantly disarm this country. We would be dramatically changing, for many people, what it feels like to be an American. I don't really understand why we're such a heavy gun culture (because I'm completely detached from it, having never even fired a gun), but we are. For many Americans, the right to own weapons is a right that is as important to them as their right to privacy, to free speech, and to freedom of religion.

That isn't to throw our hands up and say "nothing will work, so we should do nothing." But comparisons to other countries are not particularly useful. In most of the world, speech and privacy are far less protected than they are here, and it's not like all of those countries live in a police state, but that doesn't mean such restrictions would be well-received or politically viable in this country. Substantial policy changes need to take that into consideration to work.

Why should I bother? You've summarily dismissed every single example given on the thread, from Australia, from Canada, from the UK and Ireland.... You've made it clear that you're unwilling to accept anything from any of these real-world examples that might apply to the United States. Since you nitpik any difference from any study and use that as a reason for dismissing that study — that's kind of your M.O., grand dismissals — there's no reason to discuss them with you. You're closed to the arguments.

I guess this is your way of acknowledging there aren't any good comparisons to the U.S. for purposes of studying guns and crime. Otherwise, if Australia, Canada, and Ireland (!) are your best examples, your argument is in big trouble.

</I guess this is your way of acknowledging there aren't any good comparisons to the U.S. for purposes of studying guns and crime. Otherwise, if Australia, Canada, and Ireland are your best examples, your argument is in big trouble.

See? They're not good enough for you because you don't want to take a look at the details of the studies. You don't want to acknowledge that gun control legislation have impacted gun fatalities elsewhere, and that such legislation might, just might have some similar impact in the United States. There are no perfect comparisons with the US, but the fact that you refuse to allow for any possibility that something that happened in another country might happen here makes the idea of discussing comparisons with you a total waste of time.

See? They're not good enough for you because you don't want to take a look at the details of the studies. You don't want to acknowledge that gun control legislation have impacted gun fatalities elsewhere, and that such legislation might, just might have some similar impact in the United States. There are no perfect comparisons, but the fact that you refuse to allow for any possibility that something that happened in another country might happen here makes the idea of discussing comparisons with you a total waste of time.

No, they're "not good enough" for me not because I "don't want to take a look at the details of the studies" — which, incidentally, you haven't actually posted — but because comparing the U.S. to Azerbaijan or Singapore is roughly akin to comparing the statistics of the New York Yankees with those of Hank's Yanks.

At least be man enough to acknowledge that.

First the pro-Asian racism, and now some sexism. Tsk, tsk. Not very liberal of you.

First the pro-Asian racism, and now some sexism. Tsk, tsk. Not very liberal of you.

So Joe, you're admitting that not everyone against you is a liberal then?

edit: Just when did being called a liberal become a slur? Its a very odd and peculiar thing. Especially since leftists don't throw 'conservatives' with the venom 'liberal' is apparently associated with the word now.

You don't want to acknowledge that gun control legislation have impacted gun fatalities elsewhere, and that such legislation might, just might have some similar impact in the United States.

Just to be clear, I think it's probable that reducing the number of guns, particularly guns with large magazines and high rate-of-fire will reduce the number of mass killings in the US. I don't think it has much to do with anything about other countries so much as the lack of a particularly obvious and provocative substitute for killing bunches of people at once.

I simply don't know that the small number of mass killings per year that we have is enough of a problem, considering the size of our population, to require dramatic legislative changes. Our government is already too big and too restrictive of our freedom for my tastes. I would take a reduction in our personal freedom to own guns in exchange for a significant reduction in militarization of our police, but I suspect we're going to get both changes to gun laws and increased police power as a knee-jerk response to events like this.

The rampage came on Dec. 14, the same day a heavily armed 20-year-old man killed his mother and then opened fire at a school in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 first graders, 6 adults and then himself. Official Chinese news organizations had much more coverage of the Newtown massacre than of the Henan attack, and there was an outpouring of sympathy for the American tragedy as well as commentary drawing inevitable comparisons. Many Chinese Internet users pondered how many students at the Chenpeng school might have been killed if China had gun control laws as loose as those in the United States.

But now the Chinese video, circulating here on television and the Internet, has refocused attention on the Chenpeng attack, especially on security measures at the school and on local officials’ efforts to squelch coverage. Fury has been building because such rampages have recurred over the last three years, with intruders slashing at schoolchildren with knives and axes, including one who attacked with a hammer and then set himself on fire. Each case set off fear among parents across the country as well as criticism of government officials for not doing enough to protect children; each time, officials guaranteed schools would be secure. The video made blatant the gap between the official promises and reality.

“Did the government not say that no strangers can get into schools?” wrote one Internet user, Xia Ling, on a microblog. “Did the government not say that every school has security guards? Liars! You will eventually all face karma someday.”

The Chinese are facing their own issues with random mass attacks. It is interesting that the kids were able to a) actually try to run away when they had a chance, and b) actually beat away from their attacker. Their government officials are truly pathetic though.

They're fairly similar. Just substitute Hispanics with French-Canadians, and a few African-Americans with Asians and Natives.

Closer than I thought, but I still think Oz is better if not in percentages then in attitude. Regardless, these comparisons are great to expose the deficiencies of the American welfare state, but AFAIK (and plz correct me if I'm wrong) no other nation -- aside perhaps a largely symbolic legislative nod to the UDoHR -- has an equivalent to the US Bill of Rights, or even if it does, lacks one with such a highly placed protection of gun ownership among those rights.

I don't see the 2A as protecting an individual right in any case. I think it refers to a collective right.

Very convenient, but at least it's a quasi-plausible interpretation. Especially when compared to the "arms does not mean firearms" interpretation proffered by Sam(?) previously which takes my breath away and totally removes any hyperbole from Mencken's observation on lawyer's inevitable pedantry and shutting out of common sense. Still, I don't understand how or why any liberal would NOT apply a maximalist interpretation of any right implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Now a cynical bullshit right made out of whole cloth like, for instance, propertarians' beloved bribery=speech formulation, is something else, even aside the fact that it is by its "discoverers'" design corruptive of democracy. Neither by a Blackian Southern Baptist literal reading nor a Douglasian mega-prenumbral-exegesis reading does it exist; rather it only exists because of venality and the power of expensive propaganda. But the 2nd Amendment DOES exist, however weirdly and archaically written (though the last and most important 14 words are so plain a kindergartener could grasp them, and rather better than anti-gun fanatics). So either nullify it via a constitutional convention remedy or accept it and the regrettable but inevitable fatalities that come from it. As a socialist with a few anarchist sympathies, I'm glad it exists and note that it is race, gender, and most importantly, class neutral -- that last being the first casualty of many of the existing and proposed judicial and statuary infringements -- infringements, btw, that are reactionary and illiberal by definition, yet are almost always effected by liberals.

but AFAIK (and plz correct me if I'm wrong) no other nation -- aside perhaps a largely symbolic legislative nod to the UDoHR -- has an equivalent to the US Bill of Rights, or even if it does, lacks one with such a highly placed protection of gun ownership among those rights.

There is act of parliament passed in 1689 entitled "The Bill of Rights" which included (among other things) a clause that declared that "no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law". Which isn't precisely the 2nd ammendment...but at least it mentions guns!

EDIT: Wikipedia makes the claim that Australia is the only Western democracy without a "Bill of Rights", though perhaps that's not the same thing as "an equivalent to the US Bill or Rights". This isn't meant as snark, I'm certainly no constitutional scholar so I assume you're making a distinction that I'm simplifying away.

I'm glad it exists and note that it is race, gender, and most importantly, class neutral -- that last being the first casualty of many of the existing and proposed judicial and statuary infringements -- infringements, btw, that are reactionary and illiberal by definition, yet are almost always effected by liberals.

It's class neutral only in theory. But guns cost money, and nothing that costs money is class neutral in practice.

Adding, lest someone lump me in with truly awful people like Ray and Nieosporin and Spierdalajski, that I don't begrudge an anti-gun crusade fought on social and cultural grounds. Sneer like indie rock snobs! Proscribe to your culture warriors' hearts' content. Make guns UGLY. Indoctrinate the children. Just stop the legal crap unless you're gonna play by the rules. And stop trying to obfuscate plain-meaning words and phrases. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" just like "no law abridging" bloody well means "no law abridging."

But guns cost money, and nothing that costs money is class neutral in practice.

At one time guns and ammo were very cheap. As I mentioned previously the price skyrocketed from 2008 because bedwetting gun nuts were convinced Obama was gonna put a blanket ban on the sales of everything. But even before then things had gone up largely due to regulation. I know my Makarov's list price was almost doubled because of it.

here is act of parliament passed in 1689 entitled "The Bill of Rights" which included (among other things) a clause that declared that "no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law". Which isn't precisely the 2nd ammendment...but at least it mentions guns!

Thx. Funny, there is an argument I read somewhere that the 9th amendment was meant to include the 1689 bill of rights somehow. Or maybe I'm remembering that incorrectly.

I don't understand how or why any liberal would NOT apply a maximalist interpretation of any right implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Two reasons: One is that the Court spent 70 years giving a maximalist interpretation to the right of property which resulted in the denial of rights to anyone else. Second, as a good liberal, I also take republican government pretty seriously. That means that I want to preserve the right of the majority to make laws as long as that can be done without undue restrictions on essential liberties. It's always a balance.

I'm not sure what a "maximalist" interpretation would include, though. The right to own automatic weapons? The right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? All the rights in the BoR get interpreted to limit them in some way. It's really just a question of how far that goes. I don't think the same limit needs to apply to each right, because I think the consequences differ pretty dramatically: allowing more porn just isn't the same as allowing magazines with 100 rounds.

I'm not sure what a "maximalist" interpretation would include, though. The right to own automatic weapons? The right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? All the rights in the BoR get interpreted to limit them in some way. It's really just a question of how far that goes. I don't think the same limit needs to apply to each right, because I think the consequences differ pretty dramatically: allowing more porn just isn't the same as allowing magazines with 100 rounds.

Right no one has a right to distribute child pornography and call it free speech, yet the First Amendment lives. No one has an absolute right to assemble any time any place--cities can require reasonable permitting processes, yet the right to assemble exists. No one has a right to claim human sacrifice is exempt from prosecution because it's a religious rite, yet freedom of religion exists. There are times when searches without warrants can take place yet the 4th Amendment still has meaning.

No right is treated as absolute but has to be--under great scrutiny--balanced against other interests.

The line may be poorly drawn in some places, and there's value in making sure the government doesn't cross the line, but the slippery slope in many of the rights has proven not really to be that slippery at all. Saying you couldn't distribute child porn or yell fire in a theater did not suddenly lead to mass arrests for speaking against the government.

Saying you couldn't distribute child porn or yell fire in a theater did not suddenly lead to mass arrests for speaking against the government.

Heh. While I agree with your overall point, the case in which the Court used the "shout fire" example was, in fact, one in which people were arrested for speaking against the government. It took quite a while for the Court to fix that.

Heh. While I agree with your overall point, the case in which the Court used the "shout fire" example was, in fact, one in which people were arrested for speaking against the government. It took quite a while for the Court to fix that.

All of that aside, what was the baseline? Was Australia having 20 mass shootings per year which dropped to zero after it passed some new gun laws, or did the country move to reduce guns after a one-off incident that was statistically unlikely in the first place?

Australia instituted gun laws and saw gun deaths drop by a huge amount. Which is exactly what what would expect. You of course think think the weather or illegitimacy rate has something to do with why the US would not experience a drop with similar gun laws. You thoughts on the subject are ridiculous.

The U.S. has over 15 times more people than Australia, the U.S. is far more diverse than Australia, the U.S. has substantially greater problems with gangs and drugs, the U.S.'s illegitimacy rate is almost double Australia's, the two countries' cultures are different, the geography is different, the weather is different, the population densities are different, etc., etc.

Really geography? Weather? Culturally (especially with regards to guns and a frontier mindset) the two nations are very similar. Yes you can find differences, but differences that impact gun deaths vis-a-vis gun control laws? Nope.